Your numbers seem sound and well thought out, and they help demonstrate how simple personal choices in diet can make a huge difference in our individual impact on the environment. I would argue that the term "bad for the environment" describes a very different question that seldom seems to be as well thought out as the numbers.
Imagine what would happen to our personal choices if we could only choose from options that were good for the environment, either in the limited scope of your calculations, or in a more comprehensive evaluation of the true global impacts. Could meat and cheese still be something we consume?
To answer this, we have to look at how animals (including humans) can be beneficial in a way that reverses the impact. In other words, we could turn the problem into a solution.
Dairy cows would still produce calves, most of which would be eaten at a tender age (pun not intended) and a lot of methane would be collected as fuel. Feedlots and grain production would be profoundly altered if they would continue to exist at all. You would pet the cow and the calf far more frequently than you currently stroke your meat (pun not intended) and these creatures would be local enough to be consdered your close neighbors.
These animals would graze more than they do now. They would trim your hedge and cut your grass. They would be workers in the sense that they do something you want instead of doing something that destroys you. Our consumption of meat and cheese products would be significantly reduced, but whoever refuses to eat them at all would benefit financially from those less inclined to do so.
I hate to think about how heavy handed we would have to be in order to impose such restrictions on our lifestyle en mass. The world might resemble some strange dystopia with genetically engineered humans being grazed and milked for cheese products, and "Soylent Green" remakes would be a hit at the box office. Nevertheless, limiting our choices may very well be something that is optional now, but it is likely to be less optional in the future.
Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is going to take over soon and we won't have to worry about this at all anymore. It won't be our responsibility. The magnitude of the restrictions that will be forced upon us is inversely proportionate to the integrity of the choices we are currently free to make.
Now consider a practical approach with a real life example. There are several dozen conventional fast food and grocery outlets near my city garden. The majority of people living within a mile are nearer to me than they are to any of those outlets. If they get hungry, as many people do, they can harvest a fresh meal from my yard. However, to get free, local, sustainable, positive impact nutrition from me, they must pick only that which needs to be picked in a manner that improves my yard. They must treat my plants as I treat them, with individual attention and concern about how every square inch of sunlight and soil is utilized for maximum contribution to the whole. If they were to do so, I would have enough free time to install a similar system in their own back yard, and I would gladly do so.
I graze as I'm watering. I pick leaves for myself and the hens that are damaged by insects. This makes it easy for me to use the insects as well because I feed them to the hens, but I couldn't be sustainable without animals being carefully integrated. Even if the only animal is me, that animal has to be integrated. Larger animals for larger plots is entirely workable, and it's important to realize that they can be “good” for they environment and not necessarily “bad” as is assumed by your question. In such an environment, meat and dairy would be an evil waste product if it were not consumed, but a cow would still be contributing much more than a human could, as long as the environment is appropriate to the beast and not the other way around.